A Review of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT)
Kyung Hee Kim Eastern Michigan University ABSTRACT: Dr. E. Paul Torrance, Father of Creativ- ity, is best known for developing the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT). The TTCT was developed by Torrance in 1966. It has been renormed 4 times: in 1974, 1984, 1990, and 1998. There are 2 forms (A and B) of the TTCT-Verbal and 2 forms (A and B) of the TTCT-Figural. However, in the scope of this review, only the TTCT-Figural was examined. The TTCT has been translated into more than 35 languages (Millar, 2002). It has become highly recommended in the edu- cational field and is even used in the corporate world. It is the most widely used test of creativity (Davis, 1997) and is the most referenced of all creativity tests (Lissitz & Willhoft, 1985). Basic information is pre- sented, including purposes, content area, norms, reli- ability, and validity. Strengths and weaknesses of the TTCT, including use of the TTCT in identifying gifted learners and suggestions for further development and improvement, are provided and discussed. E. Paul Torrance was an international leader in cre- ativity research and was best known for developing the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT), which are used in the business world and in education to as- sess individuals capacity for creativity (E. Paul Torrance, 87, 2003, p. B13). Torrance (1966, p. 6) defined creativity as a process of becoming sensitive to problems, deficiencies, gaps in knowledge, missing elements, disharmonies, and so on; identifying the difficulty; searching for solutions, making guesses, or formulating hypotheses about the deficiencies: testing and retesting these hypotheses and possibly modify- ing and retesting them; and finally communicating the results. The TTCT does not entirely operationalize Torrances definition of creativity (Chase, 1985); however, Torrance neither concluded that his tests as- sess all dimensions of creativity, nor did he suggest that they should be used alone as a basis for decisions (Treffinger, 1985). Torrance (1974) stated that show- ing a high degree of these abilities on the TTCT does not guarantee a persons chances of behaving cre- atively. According to Torrance (Torrance, 1990, 1998; Torrance & Ball, 1984), creative motivation and skills as well as creative abilities are necessary for adult creative achievement to occur. The TTCT-Verbal and the TTCT-Figural are two versions of the TTCT. The TTCT-Verbal has two paral- lel forms, A and B, and consists of five activities: ask-and-guess, product improvement, unusual uses, unusual questions, and just suppose. The stimulus for each task includes a picture to which people respond in writing (Torrance, 1966, 1974). The TTCT-Figural has two parallel forms, Aand B, and consists of three activ- ities: picture construction, picture completion, and re- peated figures of lines or circles. For the purposes of this article, only the TTCT-Figural will be discussed. Ten minutes are required to complete each activity. In Activity I, the subject constructs a picture using a pear or jellybean shape provided on the page as a stimulus. The stimulus must be an integral part of the picture construction. Activity II requires the subject to use 10 incomplete figures to make an object or picture. The Creativity Research Journal 2006, Vol. 18, No. 1, 314 Copyright 2006 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Creativity Research Journal 3 This is a version of a paper presented at the 8th Asian-Pacific Confer- ence on Giftedness held in Daejeon, Korea, July 2630, 2004. Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Kyung Hee Kim, 313 Porter College of Education Building, Depart- ment of Teacher Education, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI 48197. E-mail: kkim7@emich.edu last activity, Activity III, is composed of three pages of lines or circles that the subject is to use as a part of his or her picture (Torrance, 1966, 1974, 1990, 1998; Torrance & Ball, 1984). Torrance (1966) recommended the creation of a game-like, thinking, or problem-solving atmosphere, avoiding the threatening situation associated with test- ing. His intent was to set the tone so that the expecta- tion that examinees would enjoy the activities was cre- ated. Examinees should be encouraged to have fun and should experience a psychological climate that is as comfortable and stimulating as possible. Thus, ac- cording to the administration of the TTCT in the man- ual (Ball & Torrance, 1984), administrators of the tests should invite the examinees to enjoy the activities and view the tests as a series of fun activities, thereby re- ducing test anxiety. The TTCT can be administered as an individual or group test from the kindergarten level through the graduate level and beyond. It requires 30 min of work- ing time, so speed is important, and artistic quality is not required to receive credit (Chase, 1985). Scholastic Testing Service, Inc., holds the copyright for the TTCT and has provided a 1998 norms manual for the test. Purpose The TTCT was part of a long-term research pro- gram emphasizing classroom experiences that stimu- late creativity (Swartz, 1988). Torrance is readily identified with his eponymous tests of creativity, but assessment of creativity was not one of Torrances goals. Torrances main focus was in understanding and nurturing qualities that help people express their creativity. The tests were not designed to simply mea- sure creativity, but instead to serve as tools for its en- hancement (Hbert, Cramond, Neumeister, Millar, & Silvian, 2002). Torrance (1966, 1974) suggested the following uses for the tests: 1. To understand the human mind and its func- tioning and development. 2. To discover effective bases for individualizing instruction. 3. To provide clues for remedial and psychotherapeutic programs. 4. To evaluate the effects of educational pro- grams, materials, curricula, and teaching pro- cedures. 5. To be aware of latent potentialities. In other words, although the tests have been used mostly for assessment in the identification of gifted children, Torrance originally planned to use them as a basis for individualizing instruction for different stu- dents based on the test scores (Torrance, 1966, 1974). The test may yield a composite score (the Creativity Index[CI]), but Torrance discouraged interpretation of scores as a static measure of a persons ability and, in- stead, argued for using the profile of strengths as a means to understand and nurture a persons creativity (Hbert et al., 2002; Torrance, 1966, 1974, 1979). Thus, the purposes of the TTCT are for research and experimentation, for general use, for instructional planning, and for determining possible strengths of students. Content Areas Guilford (1956, 1959, 1960, 1986) considered cre- ative thinking as involving divergent thinking, which emphasizes fluency, flexibility, originality, and elabo- ration. Guilford, however, noted that creative thinking is not the same as divergent thinking, because creativ- ity requires sensitivity to problems as well as redefini- tion abilities, which include transformations of thought, reinterpretations, and freedom from func- tional fixedness in driving unique solutions. Although there have been several revisions of the TTCT-Figural manual, the test itself has remained unchanged. The first edition in 1966 measured fluency, flexibility, orig- inality, and elaboration, which were taken from the di- vergent-thinking factors found in Guilfords (1959) Structure of the Intellect Model (Baer, 1997; Torrance, 1966). The second edition measured the same four scoring variables as that of 1966 (Torrance, 1974). The stimuli of the TTCT of 1984 are identical to those of 1966 and 1974, but the scoring procedures were changed in the third edition, the TTCT of 1984. Chase (1985) criticized earlier editions of the TTCT because of a lack of empirical basis for the scoring de- cisions caused by the subjectivity of scoring. However, the scoring system has been improved since the 1984 edition, because Torrance (Ball & Torrance, 1984) en- hanced the scoring of the TTCT by designing a stream- lined scoring system. The TTCT-Figural manual has presented a simplification of the scoring procedures 4 Creativity Research Journal K. H. Kim and has also provided a detailed scoring workbook (Ball & Torrance, 1984) in addition to the Norms-Technical Manual. Two norm-referenced measures of creative poten- tial, abstractness of titles and resistance to premature closure, were added to fluency, originality, and elabo- ration; the measure of flexibility (scored by the variety of categories of relevant responses) was eliminated be- cause it correlated very highly with fluency (Hbert et al., 2002). The five subscales are listed as follows, with descriptions of each subscale and information about scoring and the content measured (Torrance & Ball, 1984; Torrance, 1990):
Fluency: The number of relevant ideas; shows an
ability to produce a number of figural images.
Originality: The number of statistically infre-
quent ideas; shows an ability to produce uncom- mon or unique responses. The scoring procedure counts the most common responses as 0 and all other legitimate responses as 1. The originality lists have been prepared for each item on the ba- sis of normative data, which are readily memo- rized by scorers.
Elaboration: The number of added ideas; demon-
strates the subjects ability to develop and elabo- rate on ideas. Abstractness of Titles: The degree beyond label- ing; based on the idea that creativity requires an abstraction of thought. It measures the degree a title moves beyond concrete labeling of the pic- tures drawn. Resistance to Premature Closure: The degree of psychological openness; based on the belief that creative behavior requires a person to consider a variety of information when processing informa- tion and to keep an open mind. Thirteen criterion-referenced measures, which Torrance called creative strengths, also were added to the scoring (Torrance, 1990; Torrance & Ball, 1984). The creative strengths are emotional expressiveness, storytelling articulateness, movement or action, ex- pressiveness of titles, synthesis of incomplete figures, synthesis of lines or circles, unusual visualization, in- ternal visualization, extending or breaking boundaries, humor, richness of imagery, colorfulness of imagery, and fantasy. To get a CI, the standard scores of each of five vari- ables are used according to the TTCT Norms-Techni- cal Manual (Torrance, 1998). Rawscores are converted into standard scores with means of 100 and standard deviations of 20. The standard scores of each subscale can be ranged as follows: fluency, 40154; originality, 40160; elaboration, 40160; Abstractness of titles, 40160; resistance to premature closure, 40160. The standard scores for each of the five norm-referenced measures are averaged to produce an overall indicator of creative potential. For the frequency of creative strength, a + or ++ is awarded on the basis of the scor- ing guide. The number of +s is added (range for Cre- ative Strengths: 026) to the averaged standard scores to yield a Creative Index (Torrance, 1998). Torrance added these subscales based on informa- tion that was unavailable when he originally developed the TTCT in 1966, because of his concern that the norm-referenced score was not measuring the breadth of creativity manifestations he had observed (Hbert et al., 2002; Torrance, 1979). He used continued research to expand his test, including studies of the creative gi- ants, personality studies of creative people, creativity training guides, his own studies, and other literature in the field. Torrance (1979, 1988, 1994; Torrance &Ball, 1984) also provided evidence to show that the new subscales were valid predictors of creative achieve- ment and that they improved the tests validity. Content and construct validity of the scoring variables have been studied in a factor-analytic study (Mourad, 1976), a comparative study (Rungsinan, 1977), a develop- mental study (Ali-el-din, 1978; 1982), and Torrances The Search for Satori and Creativity (1979). Accord- ing to Johnson and Fishkin (1999), the TTCTs revised scoring system addresses essential constructs of cre- ative behaviors reflective of Torrances (1988) defini- tion of creativity. Therefore, Torrance showed that the TTCT is not only a divergent thinking test but also a creativity test as of the 1984 revisions. Norms The 1998 TTCT manual provides norms generated in the summer of 1997 and includes both grade-related (kindergarten through Grade 12) and age-related norms (ages 6 through 19). Samples included 55,600 kindergarten through 12th-grade students from the central (3.6%), northeast (11.4%), southeast (15.2%), Creativity Research Journal 5 Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking and western (57.6%) regions in the United States and other areas, including Canada (2.2%; Torrance, 1998). These groupings are used by the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the U.S. Department of Com- merce, and the National Education Association. The central region was somewhat undersampled, and the western region was oversampled. Although the TTCT has been used in more than 35 countries for research purposes, there have been fewer authorized versions for which the developers have developed (or been de- veloping) country norms. Among those are Brazil, France, Italy, Portugal, Saudi Arabia (and the Arabic countries), Slovenia, Taiwan, Turkey, and Korea (un- der development). In each of these countries, the norms were developed by the local author (J. Kauffman, vice president of Scholastic Testing Service, Inc., personal communication, January 25, 2005). In addition, norms for many other countries either have been either or are being developed for research purposes. Reliability According to the TTCT-Figural Manual of 1998, the reliability estimates of the creative index from KuderRichardson 21 using 99th percentile scores as the estimates of the number of items rangedbetween.89 and .94. The TTCT-Figural Manual of 1990 states that the interrater reliability among the scorers for Scholas- tic Testing Service, Inc., was greater than .90. Samples included 88,355 kindergarten through 12th-grade stu- dents intheUnitedStates fromthesouth(41.4%), north- east (28.5%), north central (5.1%), and west (5.1%), as well as some students from Canada (Torrance, 1990). According to the TTCT manuals of 1966 and 1974, the testretest reliability coefficients have ranged from .50 to .93, which is not so high. Torrance (1974) indi- cated that motivational conditions affect the measure- ment of creative functioning, which could explain the low testretest reliability. Treffinger (1985) concluded that, given the complexity of creative thinking, the TTCT can be seen as having reasonable reliability for group and research applications. Validity The preliminary studies were conducted examin- ing the predictive validity of the TTCT including ele- mentary education majors (Torrance, Tan, & Allman, 1970), seventh-grade students (Cropley, 1971), and economically disadvantaged elementary school Black children (Witt, 1971), which increased the TTCTs credibility as a predictor of creative productivity (Hbert et al., 2002). However, four points of data that were collected from two elementary schools and a high school provide the major body of longitudinal research on the TTCT. Beginning in 1958 and contin- uing through 1964, all students enrolled in grades 16 in two elementary schools took the TTCT each year. Beginning in 1959, all students enrolled in grades 712 of the University of Minnesota High School also took the TTCT. The results of the follow-up of 46 high school stu- dents at a 7-year interval are as follows (Torrance, 1969, 1972). Three of the TTCT subscales (fluency, flexibility, and originality) correlated significantly (at the .01 level) with both quantity and quality of creative achievements, and the significant correlations ranged from r = .39 to .48. IQ (Iowa Test of Basic Skills, Lorge-Thorndike, or the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale) correlated (r = .37) with quality of creative achievements. The three TTCT subscale scores were better predictors of creative achievement than IQ, high school achievement, or peer nominations. The results of the follow-up of 236 high school stu- dents at the 12-year interval indicated that all of the creativity predictors (fluency, flexibility, inventive level, elaboration, originality, and IQ [only for qual- ity]) were found to be significant (at the .01 level), ex- cept IQfor quantity of creative achievements (r = .06, p > .05) and creativeness of aspiration (r = .18, p .05) for girls (Torrance, 1972). The results of the follow-up of 211 elementary school students at the 22-year interval are as follows (Torrance, 1980, 1981a, 1981b). The criteria used were number of high school creative achievements, number of posthigh school creative achievements, number of creative style of life achievements, quality of highest creative achievements, and creativeness of future ca- reer image. The judges interrater reliabilities obtained using Cronbachs alpha were .81 (Torrance, 1981b). Pearson productmoment correlation coefficients cal- culated between the CI from elementary school TTCT scores and each of the five criteria was significant (at the .001 level). Amultiple correlation coefficient of .63 was obtained for the five criteria entered into a step- wise multiple regression equation (Torrance, 1981b). 6 Creativity Research Journal K. H. Kim The results of the follow-up of 99 elementary school students at the 40-year interval are as follows (Torrance, 2002). The predictors included IQ, flu- ency, flexibility, originality, elaboration, creative strengths, whether respondents had a mentor in 1980, and whether respondents had a mentor in 1998. The criteria used were number of publicly recognized cre- ative achievements and quality of public achieve- ments. The judges interrater reliabilities obtained us- ing Cronbachs alpha ranged from .78 to .88. IQ was a significant predictor of quantity (r = .44, p .01) and quality (r = .46, p .01) of creative achievements for females but not for males. Originality was a sig- nificant predictor of quality of creative achievements for both males (r = .32, p .05) and females (r = .40, p .01). Creative strengths was a significant predic- tor of quality for males (r = .45, p .01), and both quality (r = .41, p .01) and quantity (r = .29, p .05) were significant predictors of quality for fe- males. Having had a mentor in 1980 was a significant predictor of quantity (r = .41, p .01) and quality (r = .50, p .01) of creative achievements for females but not for males. Having had a mentor in 1998 was a significant predictor for both males (r = .36, p .05) and females (r = .40, p .01) for quality of creative achievements but not for quantity. Quantity and qual- ity of creative achievements were highly correlated for both males (r = .90, p .01) and for females (r = .81, p .01). This showed the link between quantity of ideas and the production of quality of ideas (Hbert et al., 2002). Torrance and Wus (1981) study and Yamada and Tams (1996) reanalysis and Pluckers (1999) reanalysis of Torrances data concluded that the Cre- ative Index was the best predictor for adult creative achievement. Plucker (1999) found that the standard- ized path coefficient from the TTCT to adult creative achievement was .60, whereas the standardized path coefficient from IQ scores (the Stanford-Binet Intelli- gence Scale, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, or California Test of Mental Maturity) was .19. In terms of concurrent validity, Gonzales and Cam- pos (1997) studied the correlations between TTCT and the Spatial Test of Primary Mental Abilities (PMA) and the Gordon Test of Visual Imagery Control. The results indicated that imagery was significantly corre- lated with various aspects of creative thinking. Among those with IQ > 120, the correlation between original- ity and PMA was .36 (p < .001) and the correlation be- tween originality and scores on the Gordon test was .30 (p < .01). The correlation between resistance to prema- ture closure and PMA was .33 (p < .001), and resis- tance to premature closure and the Gordon test was .26 (p < .01). In terms of construct validity, studies on the TTCT have shown conflicting results regarding its dimensionality (Chase, 1985; Clapham, 1998; Dixon, 1979; Heausler & Thompson, 1988; Hocevar, 1979a, 1979b; Hocevar & Michael, 1979; Runco & Mraz, 1992; Treffinger, 1985). Guilford (1959, 1962) con- ceptualized divergent thinking as multidimensional, and many researchers have hypothesized that creativity consists of several independent psychological factors. Torrance (1966, 1974) also encouraged the use of indi- vidual scale scores and warned that using a single score may be misleading. However, Hocevar (1979a, 1979b) argued that the TTCT and Guilfords divergent thinking tests measure only fluency. Dixon (1979) was concerned that origi- nality scores of the TTCT depended heavily on fluency scores. Abernathy Tannehill (1998) also considered the significant correlation between fluency and origi- nality as the sign that the subscores of the TTCT may not measure independent constructs. Hocevar and Michael (1979) found that the heterotraitmonomethod coefficients were too high compared with monotraitheteromethod coefficients based on multitraitmultimethod analyses using the TTCT and Guilford tests, which suggests that these two tests lack discriminant validity. Runco and Mraz (1992) also criticized the lack of discriminant validity of the TTCT in a study including several other diver- gent thinking tests. Heausler and Thompson (1988) concluded that the correlations among the subscales were so high that each subscale could not provide meaningfully different information. Chase (1985) suggested that the correla- tion coefficients among fluency, flexibility, and origi- nality were so high (.74 to .80) that one single score could be appropriate for the three subscores. Thus, Treffinger (1985) warned that interpretations of TTCT subscores as if they were independent should be avoided. Hassan (1986) also concluded that there was no justification for considering creativity as composed of the distinct traits recommended by Torrance. There are not many studies that have analyzed fac- tor structures of the TTCT. One study modeled two components through a principal component analysis Creativity Research Journal 7 Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking and concluded that the scores of the TTCT primarily reflect one general factor (Heausler & Thompson, 1988). Clapham (1998) also concluded that there is only one general factor for the TTCT. Further, the re- sult of a principal component analysis indicated that resistance to premature closure explained the highest amount of the variance in the CI. Contrary to the research cited here, the results of confirmatory analyses (Kim, in press; Kim & Cramond, 2004) based on 500 sixth graders indicated that a two-factor model fits significantly better than a single-factor model. This study examined the possi- bility of a two-factor model based on Kirtons (1976, 1978, 1989) AdaptorInnovator (AI) Theory. Ac- cording to Kirton (1978), innovators prefer to create change by threatening the paradigm, whereas adap- tors prefer to create change by working within the ex- isting paradigm. Factor innovative is loaded by flu- ency, originality, and resistance to premature closure, whereas factor adaptive is loaded by elaboration, ab- stractness of titles, and creative strengths. The factor models with and without creative strengths also were analyzed, because creative strengths had different procedures from the other subscales in scoring. How- ever, this subscale is too important to be excluded from full explanations of the scores of the TTCT (E. P. Torrance, personal communication, October 30, 2002). The factor models without creative strengths fit better than those with creative strengths. This indi- cates that creative strengths might represent a sepa- rate factor. However, more indicators of the TTCT would be needed to test this model. The high (.844) correlation between fluency and originality also was noted in Kimand Cramonds study (2004), as criticized by several researchers before. However, Torrance and Safter (1999) argued that the person who produces a large number of alternatives is more likely to produce original ones. Simonton (1990) also concluded that a persons originality is a function of the number of ideas formulated. Several longitudi- nal studies of the TTCT also have shown a link be- tween the quantity of ideas and the quality of ideas that are produced (Hbert et al., 2002), as mentioned in the validity section. Other studies (Kim, 2004a; Kim, Cramond, & Bandalos, 2004, in press) based on 3,000 kindergarten- ers, third graders, and sixth graders support a two-fac- tor structure. In addition, the results of the multiple group analyses indicated that the latent structure of the TTCT showed more differences across grade-level groups than across gender groups. These findings are consistent with Torrances conclusion (1977) that the TTCT-Figural was fair in terms of gender. These re- sults also indicate that when TTCT scores are com- pared among different grade levels, more caution may be needed for interpretation. Merits Positive features of the TTCT include the wealth of information available on it, the short time needed for administration, and the ease of its administration (Swartz, 1988). It has fewer limitations and cautions to apply, and it is more researched and analyzed than any other creativity instrument (Johnson & Fishkin, 1999; Swartz, 1988; Treffinger, 1985). The TTCT-Figural has had 25 years of extensive development and evalua- tion (Millar, 2002). It has one of the largest norming samples, with valuable longitudinal validations (Davis, 1997) and high predictive validity over a very wide age range (Cropley, 2000). The standardized administra- tion, scoring procedures and norms, and the develop- ment and evaluation (Davis &Rimm, 1994) have made the TTCT especially useful for identifying gifted and talented students. The TTCT-Figural can be fair in terms of gender, race, and community status, as well as for persons with a different language background, so- cioeconomic status, and culture (Cramond, 1993; Torrance, 1977). Torrance (1971; Torrance & Torrance, 1972) found that in most situations there are no statistically significant differences in performance on the TTCT because of race or socioeconomic status; in some cases, the TTCT favors Black children and children of low socioeconomic backgrounds. Use in Identifying Gifted Learners The most extensive use of the TTCT-Figural is for identification of children for gifted programs. The TTCT is a helpful addition to the assessment reper- toire, because most measures for gifted identification are heavily driven by verbal and quantitative content (Torrance, 1977), largely measuring achievement and aptitude in those specific areas. Even teacher recom- mendation focuses more on the students classroom performance than other kinds of potential. For these 8 Creativity Research Journal K. H. Kim reasons, the TTCT-Figural is valuable in that it allows another perspective on the students ability that is vastly different from other aptitude and achievement tests. It also may be less biased for those who speak English as a second language (Torrance, 1977), be- cause the test is not based on a students ability to use the English language. As an alternative to standardized testing, expert opinions are highly recommended for identifying gifted students by Baer (1993, 1994). Cramond (1994b), however, pointed out that experts might have failed to identify Van Gogh, Einstein, and Edison as gifted when they were children either because of a vested interest in the status quo or because of the chil- drens lack of production in the field of their future suc- cess. Experts may find the child who is already suc- ceeding in a field but are hard pressed to discover latent potential. Furthermore, such opinions are costly, and true experts are rare, especially in rural areas. In practical situations, teacher nomination is one of the most common methods for identifying gifted stu- dents. However, teachers tend to prefer gifted children who are low in creativity to those who are highly cre- ative (Anderson, 1961). Research has shown that teachers are apt to identify students who are achievers and teacher pleasers as gifted rather than creative stu- dents who may be disruptive or unconventional (Davis & Rimm, 1994; Oliphant, 1986; Rimm & Davis, 1976; Ritchie, 1980; Robinson, 1980). Even worse, energetic and unconventional students can be seen as having At- tention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) by their teachers (Cramond, 1994a). As a result of scho- lastic expectations and the needs of creatively gifted children, the potential of creatively gifted students may be overlooked by teachers who view them as trouble- makers rather than successful young scholars. Getzels and Jackson (1958) found that highly cre- ative adolescents are estranged from their teachers and peers. Children with high IQs were rated by their teachers as more desirable, better understood, more ambitious, and more studious than children with high creativity (Torrance, 1962). Drews (1961) found that the studious achievers attained the highest teacher grades, whereas the creative intellectuals attained the lowest among three types of gifted high school stu- dents: social leaders, studious achievers, and creative intellectuals. In Whitmores study (1980), when in- formed that children they had not recommended might be gifted, teachers usually volunteered information about the childs lack of the expected characteristics. Reasons included immature social and emotional be- havior, lack of striving to achieve, and less productivity than other classmates. Identification based on IQ scores may appear like an obvious way to identify gifted students in an educa- tional systemthat favors conformity, but such a limited selection criteria risks allowing creatively gifted chil- dren to go unnoticed, thus leaving their needs unmet. Torrance (1962) was concerned that a great deal of cre- ative talent goes unrecognized. Torrance (1960, 1962, 2002) concluded that if we identify gifted children only on the basis of IQand scholastic aptitude tests, we are eliminating approximately 70% of the top 20% of creative students from consideration. According to Barron and Mackinnons (Barron, 1961; Macckinnon, 1961, 1978) threshold theory, creativity and IQ are moderately related, but the relationship disappears for people with an IQ above 120. Walberg and Herbig (1991; Walberg, 1988) concluded that the very bright- est, as identified by estimated IQ, are not necessarily the most creative. To balance the risk of missing creative students that comes from identifying students by IQ only, an addi- tional form of selection may be called for. The TTCT-Figural may be a less biased and more efficient method than expert opinions, which may be inaccessi- ble, subjective, and expensive. It may also be less sub- jective and biased than teacher recommendations. Fur- thermore, the TTCT should be used to add highly creative students who may remain unnoticed in other ways, rather than to eliminate students who otherwise qualify for gifted education services (Torrance, 2002). The TTCT is not usually used by itself to make high-stakes decisions on admission to gifted programs. As an example, according to the Georgia Department of Education (1998; Krisel & Cowan, 1997), to be eli- gible for gifted programs (a) a student must score ei- ther at the 99th percentile (for kindergarteners2nd graders) or the 96th percentile (for 3rd 12th graders) on the composite or full-scale score of a standardized intelligence test and meet the achievement criteria or (b) qualify through a multiple-criteria assessment pro- cess by meeting the criteria in three of the following four areas: intelligence, achievement, creativity, and motivation. This indicates that creativity is onenot the onlycriterion used to identify a gifted student. Because Torrances purposes for developing the TTCT were for inclusion of students rather than exclusion of Creativity Research Journal 9 Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking students for individualizing instructional programs (Treffinger, 1985), the TTCT should be used for in- cluding students for gifted programs. An example of the merits of an inclusive systemcan be found in Geor- gia, where many school systems use the TTCTfor their creativity measure in the selection of students for gifted programs (a student must score at the 90th per- centile on the TTCT). Since Georgia adopted the mul- tiple criteria selection process, more minority, disad- vantaged, and other at-risk students have been placed in gifted programs than when Georgia merely used IQ scores (Williams, 2000). Suggestions for Further Development The TTCT-Figural appears to display adequate re- liability and validity (Treffinger, 1985; Cooper, 1991) for the purposes of the test. However, reliability and validity information for the latest addition of TTCT-Figural (Torrance, 1998) have not been pro- vided. This information is needed, because the new norm group may provide different reliability and va- lidity than the 1990 norm group. This is an issue, be- cause without reliability and validity, use of a test vi- olates American Psychological Association standards of practice, particularly when a test is used as an in- strument for making a decision for admission to a program. Besides a lack of reliability and validity information in the latest version of the TTCT for the norm groups, demographic characteristics such as gender, race, com- munity status, and speakers of English as second lan- guage were not outlined (e.g., Torrance, 1990, 1998). This omission could stem from the conclusion that the TTCT is fair in terms of race, socioeconomic status, and culture (Cramond, 1993; Torrance, 1971, 1977; Torrance & Torrance, 1972). However, such demo- graphic information should be included at different time periods for each version of the TTCT, because la- tent structures could vary across different groups for each CI. This information could lead to a greater un- derstanding of the TTCT, other creativity tests, the na- ture of creativity, and, ultimately, how to encourage creativity. It is probable that the originality scores also would change among various demographics over time. The author questions the credibility of originality scores from 1998, which used the same lists as in 1984. It ap- pears likely that the frequency of different responses would have changed between 1984 and the present. In addition, these responses may differ across cultures. The fact that one of Torrances associates, Richard Johnson, found that originality is culture specific (Millar, 1995) supports this opinion. Saeki, Fan, and Van Dusen (2001) also noticed this difference among cultural groups when comparing Japanese and Ameri- can responses. The experiences of the TTCT scorers also have confirmed that there might be cultural differ- ences in the originality lists (Kim, 2004b). These stud- ies suggested the creation and use of independent crite- ria for each group. The statistical frequency of various responses will vary among people from different cul- tures, which would bring misleading results if the TTCT-Figural were used in different cultures without adequate norm groups for each population and, subse- quently, their own originality lists. Some studies (Kwon, 1997; Kwon, Gotez, & Zellner, 1998) explored the development of a com- puter-based TTCT-Figural. Goff (2001) developed a brief version of the TTCT on compact disk, which is encouraging further development of the TTCT. Use of computer scoring would provide efficient and easy-to-understand interpretations of test results, espe- cially when one considers the amount of time required for scoring the TTCT. It appears wise to carefully ex- periment with appropriate applications of the com- puter and Internet for future testing. In the com- puter-based TTCTstudies (Kwon, 1997; Kwon, Gotez, &Zellner, 1998), the TTCT was interpreted in terms of time of response so that time-related information use- ful for understanding the creative thinking processes could be gathered; however, computer-based scoring was not conducted. Using a mouse to respond to the stimuli was reported to be more difficult and time-con- suming compared with the paper-and-pencil TTCT. Further developments of the TTCT could include the use of a drawing pad instead of a mouse (Kwon, 1997; Kwon et al., 1998). In addition, computer-based ver- sions of the TTCT should be studied to determine whether they yield equivalent scores as well as equal levels of reliability and validity as the original. Torrance (1974) demonstrated that a variety of motivational procedures affect creative functioning, furthering the measurement of the abilities involved in creative thinking. For instance, rewarding creative behavior (Torrance, 1965a), stress and mental health (Torrance, 1965b), and teaching procedures and envi- 10 Creativity Research Journal K. H. Kim ronmental conditions (1966, 1974) can influence TTCT scores. Other researchers also concluded that motivation (Bamber, 1973; Halpin & Halpin, 1973), fatigue (Johnson & Fishkin, 1999), and testing condi- tions (Bamber, 1973; Callahan, 1991; Halpin & Halpin, 1973), as well as exposure to diverse infor- mation (Clapham, 20002001), influence TTCT scores. At the same time, however, these effects may be related to test reliability, depending on administra- tion differences. Some studies (Iscoe & Pierce-Jones, 1964; Wallach & Kogan, 1965) indicated that creativ- ity measures are influenced when creativity tests are administered as serious tests rather than as fun activi- ties, especially for children in kindergarten or in the early grades. To address these issues, Torrance (1987) suggested using a warm-up activity before adminis- tration of the TTCT to arouse the incubation pro- cesses and increase motivation, thereby enabling cre- ative energy. The use of a standardized warm-up activity that meets Torrances criteria could enhance the test and minimize fluctuations caused by motiva- tional factors. Guidelines for a specific activity in- cluded in the manual and treated as a part of the test would increase the likelihood that administrators would follow Torrances suggestions. Conclusion Both Torrance (Treffinger, 1985) and Cropley (2000) suggested that, considering the multidimen- sional nature of the creativity concept, assessments should be based on several tests, rather than relying on a single score. A minimum of two measures to assess childrens potential for creative behavior was recom- mended by Johnson and Fishkin (1999). I also recom- mend using at least two measures; that is, the TTCT and another indicator (e.g., products, performance, rat- ing scales, or recommendations). Torrances research into creativity as a measure of intelligence shattered the theory that IQ tests alone can measure real intelligence (Powell, 2003; Shearer, 2003). The TTCT provided a physical measure and groundwork for the idea that creative levels can be scaled and then increased through practicea premise that was previously only conceptual (Childs, 2003). The TTCTcan provide useful insights into creativity as long as the tests are used with sensitivity and good judgment by qualified professionals (Treffinger, 1985; Swartz, 1988), because variations in testing procedures can affect scores (Swartz, 1988). To ensure qualified scorers, there are ongoing TTCT Scoring Trainings by the Torrance Center for Creativity and Talent Develop- ment at The University of Georgia and Scholastic Testing Service, Inc. In conclusion, the TTCT appears to be a good mea- sure, not only for identifying and educating the gifted but also for discovering and encouraging everyday life creativity in the general population. When used appro- priately, the TTCT is an important part of Torrances legacy and dream: to nurture and enhance creativity among students. References Abernathy Tannehill, R. L. (1998). An analysis of selected creativity tests administered to students affiliated with the Cherokee tribe. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58(7-a), 2526. (UMI No. 9801472) Ali-el-din, M. T. (1978). Torrance indicators of creative thinking: a developmental study. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1979, 39(7-a), 4129. (UMI No. 7901613) Ali-el-din, M. T. (1982). Humor production of highly creative chil- dren. Gifted International, 1(1), 129134. Anderson, K. E. (1961). Research on the academically talented stu- dent. Washington, DC: National Education Association Project on the Academically Talented Student. Baer, J. (1993). Why you shouldnt trust creativity tests. Educational Leadership, 51(4), 8083. Baer, J. (1994). Why you still shouldnt trust creativity tests. Educa- tional Leadership, 52(2), 7273. Baer, J. (1997). Creative teachers, creative students. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Ball, O. E., & Torrance, E. P. (1984). Streamlines scoring workbook: Figural A. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc. Bamber, R. T. (1973). Play, interest, domestication, and creativity. Dissertation Abstracts International, 35, 1013B1014B. (UMI No. 7418463) Barron, F. (1961). Creative vision and expression in writing and painting. In D. W. MacKinnon (Ed.), The creative person (pp. 237251). Berkeley: University of California, Institute of Per- sonality Assessment Research. Callahan, C. M. (1991). The assessment of creativity. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 219235). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Chase, C. I. (1985). Review of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. In J. V. Mitchell Jr. (Ed.), The ninth mental measure- ments yearbook (pp. 16311632). Lincoln: University of Ne- braska, Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. Childs, M. (2003, July 14). Father of creativity E. Paul Torrance dead at 87. The College of Education Online News. Retrieved February 2, 2006, fromhttp://www.coe.uga.edu/coenews/2003/ EPTorranceObit.html Creativity Research Journal 11 Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking Clapham, M. M. (1998). Structure of figural forms A and B of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Educational & Psycho- logical Measurement, 58, 275283. Clapham, M. M. (20002001). The effects of affect manipulation and information exposure on divergent thinking. Creativity Re- search Journal, 13, 335350. Cooper, E. (1991). A critique of six measures for assessing creativ- ity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 25, 194204. Cramond, B. (1993). The Torrance tests of creative thinking: From design through establishment of predictive validity. In R. F. Subotnik & K. D. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Contempo- rary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 229254). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Cramond, B. (1994a). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and creativityWhat is the connection? Journal of Creative Behav- ior, 28, 193210. Cramond, B. (1994b). We can trust creativity tests. Educational Leadership, 52(2), 7071. Cropley, A. J. (1971). Some Canadian creativity research. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 4(3), 113115. Cropley, A. J. (2000). Defining and measuring creativity: Are cre- ativity tests worth using? Roeper Review, 23(2), 7279. Davis, G. A. (1997). Identifying creative students and measuring creativity. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 269281). Needham Heights, MA: Viacom. Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (1994). Education of the gifted and tal- ented (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster. Dixon, J. (1979). Quality versus quantity: The need to control for the fluency factor in originality scores from the Torrance Tests. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 2, 7079. Drews, E. M. (1961). Creative intellectual style in gifted adoles- cents. East Lansing: Michigan State University. E. Paul Torrance, 87: developed series of creativity tests. (2003, July 18). Los Angeles Times, p. B13. Georgia Department of Education. (1998). 16042.38 Education program for gifted students. Retrieved February 2, 2006, from http://www.gadoe.org/_documents/doe/legalservices/1604 2.38.pdf Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. W. (1958). The meaning of Giftednessan examination of an expanding concept. Phi Delta Kappan, 40, 7577. Goff, K. (2001). Creativity for success: Unleash the power of cre- ativity. Stillwater, OK: Little Ox Books. Gonzales, M. A., &Campos, A. (1997). Mental imagery and creative thinking. Journal of Psychology, 131, 357364. Guilford, J. P. (1956). Structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 267293. Guilford, J. P. (1959). Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill. Guilford, J. P. (1960). Basic conceptual problems of the psychology of thinking. Proceedings of the New York Academy of Sciences, 91, 621. Guilford, J. P. (1962). Factors that aid and hinder creativity. Teachers College Record, 63, 380392. Guilford, J. P. (1986). Creative talents: Their nature, uses and devel- opment. Buffalo, NY: Bearly Ltd. Halpin, G., &Halpin, G. (1973). The effect of motivation on creative thinking abilities. Journal of Creative Behavior, 7, 5153. Hassan, M. A. (1986). Construct validity of Torrance Tests of Cre- ative Thinking: A confirmatory factor-analytic study. Disserta- tion Abstracts International, 46(8-A), 2233. (UMI No. 8523000). Heausler, N. L., & Thompson, B. (1988). Structure of the Torrance Tests of creative thinking. Educational and Psychological Mea- surement, 48, 463468. Hbert, T. P., Cramond, B., Neumeister, K. L. S., Millar, G., & Silvian, A. F. (2002). E. Paul Torrance: His life, accomplish- ments, and legacy. Storrs: The University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (NRC/GT). Hocevar, D. (1979a). Ideational fluency as a confounding factor in the measurement of originality. Journal of Educational Psy- chology, 71, 191196. Hocevar, D. (1979b). The unidimensional nature of creative thinking in fifth grade children. Child Study Journal, 9, 273278. Hocevar, D., & Michael, W. (1979). The effects of scoring formulas on the discriminant validity of tests of divergent thinking. Edu- cational and Psychological Measurement, 39, 917921. Iscoe, I., & Pierce-Jones, J. (1964). Divergent thinking, age, and in- telligence in white and Negro children. Child Development, 35, 785798. Johnson, A. S., &Fishkin, A. S. (1999). Assessment of cognitive and affective behaviors related to creativity. In A. S. Fishkin, B. Cramond, & P. Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.), Investigating cre- ativity in youth: Research and methods (pp. 265306). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton. Kim, K. H. (2004a, April). Confirmatory factor analyses and multi- ple group analyses on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Poster presented at the Research Symposium: The Preparation of Educators, Athens, GA. Sponsored by Georgia Systemic Teacher Education Program. Kim, K. H. (2004b). Cultural influence on creativity: The relation- ship between creativity and Confucianism. Unpublished doc- toral dissertation, The University of Georgia, Athens. Kim, K. H. (in press). Is creativity unidemensional or multidimen- sional? Analyses of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Creativity Research Journal. Kim. K. H., & Cramond, B. (2004, November). Confirmatory factor analyses of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Paper pre- sented at the 51st Annual Convention of the National Associa- tion for Gifted Children in Salt Lake City, UT. Kim, K. H., Cramond, B., & Bandalos, D. L. (2004, July). The latent structure of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking-Figural. Poster presented at the 112th Convention of the American Psy- chological Association, Honolulu, HI. Kim, K. H., Cramond, B., & Bandalos, D. L. (in press). Latent struc- ture and measurement invariance of scores on the TTCTFigureal. Educational and Psychological Measurement. Kirton, M. J. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 622629. Kirton, M. J. (1978). Have adaptors and innovators equal levels of creativity? Psychological Reports, 42, 695698. Kirton, M. J. (1989). Adaptors and innovators at work. In M. J. Kirton (Ed.), Adaptors and innovators: Styles of creativity and problem-solving (pp. 5678). London: Routledge. 12 Creativity Research Journal K. H. Kim Krisel, S. C., & Cowan, R. S. (1997). Georgias journey toward mul- tiple-criteria identification of gifted students. Roeper Review, 20(2), A1A3. Kwon, M. C. (1997). An exploratory study of a computerized cre- ativity test: Comparing paper-pencil and computer-based ver- sions of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58(1-A), 0141, (UMI No. 9718390) Kwon, M., Goetz, E. T., & Zellner, R. D. (1998). Developing a com- puter-based TTCT: Promises and problems. Journal of Creative Behavior, 32, 96106. Lissitz, R. W., & Willhoft, J. L. (1985). A methodological study of the Torrance Tests of Creativity. Journal of Educational Mea- surement, 22, 1111. MacKinnon, D. W. (1961). Creativity in architects. In D. W. MacKinnon (Ed.), The creative person (pp. 237251). Berke- ley: University of California, Institute of Personality Assess- ment Research. MacKinnon, D. W. (1978). In search of human effectiveness: Iden- tifying and developing creativity. Buffalo, NY: Creative Educa- tion Foundation. Millar, G. W. (1995). E. Paul Torrance: The creativity man. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Millar, G. W. (2002). The Torrance kids at mid-life. Westport, CT: Ablex. Mourad, S. A. (1976). A factor-analytic study of the streamlined scoring of Figural Form A of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Georgia, Athens. Oliphant, C. C. (1986). Adescriptive study of factors associated with teacher identification of gifted students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 1691. (UMI No. 8611909) Plucker, J. A. (1999). Is the proof in the pudding? Reanalyses of Torrances (1958 to present) longitudinal data. Creativity Re- search Journal, 12, 103114. Plucker, J. A., & Runco, M. A. (1998). The death of creativity mea- surement has been greatly exaggerated. Roeper Review, 21(1), 3639. Powell, K. (2003, July 16). Paul Torrance, writer, innovative educa- tor. Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Retrieved February 2, 2006, from http://www.uga.edu/newsbureau/releases/2003releases/ 0307/030714torrance.html Rimm, S. B., & Davis, G. A. (1976). GIFT: An instrument for the identification of creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 10, 178182. Ritchie, S. P. (1980). Creativityandrisk-takinginyoungchildren. Dis- sertationAbstractsInternational, 42, 539. (UMI No. 8114593) Robinson, A. W. (1980). A study of the effectiveness of a special class for academically gifted elementary students on the en- hancement of the characteristics of giftedness. Dissertation Ab- stracts International, 41, 1380. (UMI No. 8021164) Runco, M. A., & Mraz, W. (1992). Scoring divergent thinking tests using total ideational output and a creativity index. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 213221. Rungsinan, A. (1977). Originality, elaboration, resistance to quick closure, unusual visual perspective, and movement among sec- ond grade children in Thailand and the United States. Disserta- tion Abstracts International, 1977, 38A, 1309. (UMI No. 7718939) Saeki, N., Fan, X., & Van Dusen, L. V. (2001). A comparative study of creative thinking of American and Japanese college students. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35(1), 2438. Shearer, L. (2003, July 14). Former UGA professor Paul Torrance dies. Athens Banner-Herald. Retrieved February 2, 2006, from http://www.coe.uga.edu/coenews/2003/TorranceOA.html Simonton, D. K. (1990) Creativity and wisdom in aging. In J. E. Birren & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (3rd ed., pp. 320329). San Diego, CA: Academic. Swartz, J. D. (1988). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. In D. J. Keyser & R. C. Sweetland (Eds.), Test Critique Vol. 7 (pp. 619622). Kansas, MS: Test Corporation of America. Torrance, E. P. (1960). Eight partial replications of the Getzels-Jack- son study (Research memo BER6018). Minneapolis: Univer- sity of Minnesota, Bureau of Educational Research. Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Torrance, E. P. (1965a). Rewarding creative behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Torrance, E. P. (1965b). Mental health and constructive behavior. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Torrance, E. P. (1966). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking-Norms-Technical Manual Research Edition-Verbal Tests, Forms A and B-Figural Tests, Forms A and B. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press. Torrance, E. P. (1969). Prediction of adult creative achievement among high school seniors. Gifted Child Quarterly, 13, 223229. Torrance, E. P. (1971). Are the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking biased against or in favor of disadvantaged groups? Gifted Child Quarterly, 15, 7580. Torrance, E. P. (1972). Predictive validity of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Journal of Creative Behavior, 6(4), 236252. Torrance, E. P. (1974). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking-Norms-Technical Manual Research Edition-Verbal Tests, Forms A and B- Figural Tests, Forms A and B. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press. Torrance, E. P. (1977). Discovery and nurturance of giftedness in the culturally different. Reston, VA: Council on Exceptional Children. Torrance, E. P. (1979). The search for satori and creativity. Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited. Torrance, E. P. (1980). Growing up creatively gifted: A 22-year lon- gitudinal study. Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 5, 148158, 170. Torrance, E. P. (1981a). Empirical validation of criterion-referenced indicators of creative ability through a longitudinal study. Cre- ative Child and Adult Quarterly, 6, 136140. Torrance, E. P. (1981b). Predicting the creativity of elementary school children (195880) and the teacher who made a differ- ence. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 5562. Torrance, E. P. (1987). Guidelines for administration and scor- ing/comments on using the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc. Torrance, E. P. (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in its test- ing. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 4373). New York: Cambridge University Press. Creativity Research Journal 13 Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking Torrance, E. P. (1990). The Torrance tests of creative thinking normstechnical manual figural (streamlined) forms A & B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc. Torrance, E. P. (1994). Creativity: Just wanting to know. Pretoria, Republic of South Africa: Benedic Books. Torrance, E. P. (1998). The Torrance tests of creative thinking normstechnical manual figural (streamlined) forms A & B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc. Torrance, E. P. (2002). The manifesto: A guide to developing a cre- ative career. West Westport, CT: Ablex. Torrance, E. P., & Ball, O. E. (1984). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking Streamlined (revised) manual, Figural A and B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc. Torrance, E. P., & Safter, H. T. (1999). Making the creative leap be- yond. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation Press. Torrance, E. P., Tan, C. A., & Allman, T. (1970). Verbal originality and teacher behavior: A predictive validity study. Journal of Teacher Education, 21, 335341. Torrance, E. P., & Torrance, P. (1972). Combining creative prob- lem-solving with creative expressive activities in the education of disadvantaged young people. Journal of Creative Behavior, 6(1), 110. Torrance, E. P., & Wu, T. (1981). A comparative longitudinal study of the adult creative achievements of elementary school chil- dren identified as highly intelligent and as highly creative. Cre- ative Child and Adult Quarterly, 6, 7176. Treffinger, D. J. (1985). Review of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. In J. V. Mitchell Jr. (Ed.), The ninth mental measure- ments yearbook (pp. 16321634). Lincoln: University of Ne- braska, Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. Walberg, H. A. (1988). Creativity and talent as learning. In R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of creativity (pp. 340361). New York: Cambridge University Press. Walberg, H. J., &Herbig, M. P. (1991). Developing talent, creativity, and eminence. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Hand- book of gifted education (pp. 245255). Boston: Allyn & Ba- con. Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Whitmore, J. R. (1980). Giftedness, conflict, and underachievement. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Willams, E. (2000). The history of the evolution of gifted identifica- tion procedures in Georgia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Georgia, Athens. Witt, G. (1971). The Life Enrichment Activity Program, Inc.: Acon- tinuing program for creative, disadvantaged children. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 4(3), 1422. Yamada, H., & Tam, A. Y. (1996). Prediction study of adult creative achievement: Torrances longitudinal study of creativity revis- ited. Journal of Creative Behavior, 30, 144149. 14 Creativity Research Journal K. H. Kim